Thread by @unseen1_unseen

I've repeatedly said that without the lockdowns the economy would still be on life support due to the fear of the virus. That the lockdowns in the grand scheme of things was probably a net positive because it allowed Trump to push economic stimulus through Congress quickly.

That most of the job loses would have happened anyway but instead of happening in a quick burst they would have been over a long drawn out period as businesses failed for lack of customers and business as people stayed home.

Well now we have evidence to show this idea is

...playing out in real life in Sweden.

"That is Sweden, which did not impose a lockdown at all. Schools remained open as did retail businesses and restaurants. The Swedish government took the novel view that the best approach is to let the virus run its course and thereby

achieve herd immunity, although it did encourage people to maintain social distancing. This view was informed by a desire to avoid economic turmoil."

"The evidence suggests, however, that the economy was hurt anyway as individuals and businesses took action meant to achieve social distancing. Data indicates that people did stay at home more, avoid public transportation, and avoid restaurants and other popular venues.

People attempted to avoid social interaction and, as a result, spent less money. Plus, Sweden is a small open economy that depends heavily on trade. It has been hurt by the economic collapse elsewhere."

www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights…

Along with the economic hit Sweden has the highest death rate per capita

telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/2…

So regardless of what we did, doing "nothing" wasn't going to save us from a major economic hit nor was it going to save us from a lot of death. It's nice to think if we would have did this or that things would be "better" but the evidence is showing in this case that's not true.